Transport Committee on Nov. 20th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Strahl.

I'll turn it over to any of the witnesses we have here to perhaps respond to the definition of “the well-being of...communities” and whether or not that's been used in other pieces of legislation.

Mr. Ryan, I'll turn it over to you.

[Aiden Ryan, Director, Marine Security Operations, Department of Transport]

To speak more broadly to the issue at play, the Canada Shipping Act already provides the legal framework for regulating marine navigation and safety for the purposes of protecting the public interest, using the term “public interest” rather than “well-being of communities” and “the environment”, where the community well-being and the environment can be taken into consideration as an element of the public interest.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Ryan.

Mr. Bachrach.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I think this is a very interesting discussion, and I'm certainly open to entertaining different words to convey the same concept.

I would add that the original text in the bill includes:

If the Minister has reasonable grounds to believe that a vessel is a threat, or poses a direct or indirect risk to the security of marine transportation, including to any person, goods, vessel or marine facility or to the health of persons involved in the marine transportation system,

This is already casting a pretty broad net. It's saying that if any marine infrastructure is at risk, then the minister can direct vessels to go elsewhere.

Then, on “direct or indirect risk to the security of...any person, goods, vessel or marine facility or to the health of persons involved in the marine transportation system”, here, we're concerned about the health of the people working on board the ship, but we're not necessarily concerned about the health of the people living on the shore and breathing the emissions from the ship that's been parked on their doorstep for the past 25 days. I think it's very much trying to get at this idea of expanding just slightly this idea of risk and threat.

I note that in the act we don't have a really good definition of what we mean by “security”, and already we see the broadening of the concept with the use of the terms “risk” and “threat”. I think that very clearly what we're trying to do is take this idea of security and this idea of risk, apply that directly to the people who are impacted by the shipping sector and allow the minister the discretion in those cases.

Another example would be that you have a vessel that has lost power or is somehow compromised, is leaking some deleterious substance and has decided to head towards the coastal community and park on its doorstep to address the problem. Here's an issue where it might not be a threat to national security in a sort of military sense, but it's clearly a threat. It's clearly a risk to the place it's going to. It's a risk to the marine environment. It's a risk to the community that lives there. This would simply provide the minister the ability to act, not just in the interest of the people on board the ship but in the interest of the people who live directly on the shore and could be impacted by this activity.

I don't know if there's another word, other than “well-being”. Perhaps “safety” is a concept, or “health”. We've already used “health” in the amendment in the bill. It says “the health of persons involved in the marine transportation system”. Arguably, the concept of health has a definition.

Perhaps if we put that over and say “the health of coastal communities”, or even “the health of the residents of coastal communities”, maybe that would be more in line with the direction that we're going in.

I would add, Mr. Chair, that I didn't hear you rule this as inadmissible, so it feels like we're having a debate on admissibility prior to clarity on whether it's admissible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

No. We're not having a debate on that. We're having a debate on....

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Well, if it's coming, it's coming, you know. If the chair is going to say that it's inadmissible, he's eventually going to get there, but I haven't heard him say that yet. It sounded like he was on the brink of calling a vote on this amazing amendment that we've put forward. I would just ask the chair, given the time, that we move to a vote on the amendment as worded.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

We have a lot of people who want to talk about this, which is good news, Mr. Bachrach.

I'm going to turn it over to Ms. Murray. Then I have Ms. Gladu, Mr. Badawey and Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

Ms. Murray, I'll turn the floor over to you.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you for this amendment and for including the environment. I wondered what you thought about a potential friendly amendment to your amendment. Rather than saying “to the environment”, it would say “to the marine ecosystem”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Ms. Murray.

We'll have a discussion on that subamendment.

I'll turn it back over to you, Mr. Bachrach.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I'm not sure how formal we want to be, Mr. Chair, but I think Ms. Murray's proposal that we reference marine ecosystems is perfectly fine, and I would support changing this. It's simply a different way of articulating the same concept, and it might be a little more specific, so I'd be happy to change the wording of our amendment accordingly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

Just as a point of clarification, where did you want to insert that, Ms. Murray?

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

It's where it says “to the environment, the well-being of coastal communities”. That's where “to the marine ecosystem” would be.

It would be a bit more specific about the marine life—the fish, the animals, the whales.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Ms. Murray.

I'll turn it over to Mr. Badawey.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First off, I want to congratulate everybody for bouncing this around and trying to get this done.

I'm assuming that, as Mr. Bachrach said, because you haven't declared it inadmissible, it is admissible. That's great. I want to congratulate Mr. Bachrach for doing this and Ms. Murray for putting on the amendment.

That said, I want to take it a step further if I can have the blessing of the committee. We have a third member of Parliament here from B.C. We've heard from two of them. I would love to hear from the third.

Mr. Chair, if the committee would so give Ms. May that grace, I would love to hear from her.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I'll make the decision to provide Ms. May with two minutes of speaking time on this.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you.

I won't need two minutes. I know that you all have a lot on your plates. I appreciate the indulgence of all committee members. I'm here under the terms of a motion passed by this committee that gives me the right to speak to the amendments I bring, which are deemed moved, but not to others, so this is a rare chance. I appreciate it very much.

I would just say to Mark Strahl that this is a weird thing that these anchorages are on our coastline, and nobody looks at them and says, “Well, there's a job I've got.” This is free parking. There is no benefit to the community whatsoever. The anchorages are not of benefit to any coastal community. They do detriment to quality of life and to the marine environment, pose threats to the southern resident killer whales from the noise of the freighters, and cause damage to the benthic organisms from dragging anchor. There are multiple issues here. We heard about them from one of the witnesses before the committee.

Specifically to NDP-2, I think what it's doing is drawing attention in Bill C-33, in that key portion where they are already looking, as Taylor has said, at questions of health and security, to the well-being of coastal communities and the security of marine transportation. These vessels, in a storm, can drag anchor. We've had collisions. We've had many near misses. We've actually had collisions in which we could easily have had an oil spill from the vessels colliding. There are numerous examples in real life, not hypotheticals, of where broadening the discretion of what the minister is looking at....

What's being looked at in this question is the environment and the well-being of coastal communities, which I think is really well expressed, including, of course, the health of the people on board. Frankly, it's in no one's economic interest to have these ships just sitting there. It doesn't help the grain growers in the prairies one little bit. The Port of Vancouver doesn't have a good, effective system right now for bulk goods. The two main types of bulk goods, grain and coal, have a history of backing up. As they back up and back up and back up, they sit in the waters of the Salish Sea up and down the coast of Vancouver Island, proliferating in number.

I'm going to shut up there, but anything we can do in Bill C-33 to give more scope to better solutions than the current practices would be much appreciated.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Ms. May.

Go ahead, Mr. Strahl.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

On a point of order, just for clarification, Ms. May herself referenced the motion. We are not in a situation where another member can designate their time to an independent member to give them standing at the committee, which has been done previously. I know that you gave her the authority, but it's my belief that there needs to be unanimous consent in order for that to happen again in the future.

Obviously, out of respect for you, we let Ms. May use her full two minutes, but given the number of amendments we have that are dealing with this, I would suggest that we follow the rules of the committee. Unanimous consent is required for independent members to speak, except when they are speaking to their own amendment. I would just like to say that.

Also, Mr. Chair, I note that the time is 5:35 p.m. We are past the normal hour of adjournment. I would like to move that we adjourn the meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Strahl.

I want to confirm that I did seek the guidance of the clerks to my left and my right before providing the time to Ms. May to speak.

We will now go to a vote. As it is a dilatory motion, there is no debate, and I'll turn it over to the clerk for that.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

With that, this meeting is adj—

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

I just want to make one point. I'm always happy to hear from Ms. May. I think she's lovely and she always has very relevant things to say in relation to the environment, but I think the rule is in Standing Order 114. I believe that substitutions have to be members of the committee. Moving forward, I think we should have some process for ensuring that her input is duly noted, and that it's not outside of the scope of authority.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Dr. Lewis.

With that, the meeting is adjourned.